Comments on: “Children of Homosexuals” Researcher More Apt To Ape Paul Cameronhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400
News and commentary about the anti-gay lobbyWed, 13 Dec 2017 15:37:49 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.7.8By: Jenniehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-93162
Mon, 25 Apr 2011 07:03:43 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-93162I appear to be the only non-LGBT person who has chosen to respond here. The criticisms given in this review seem to be well-taken, but I do not find this study to be worse or less relevant than others I have read. Patterson concluded from a study of children of gays and lesbians who were preschoolers of average age 3 years that there were no effects of gay parentage on their children’s sexual orientation–clearly a sample inadequate to the question. Bailey has published a study which is more a lament about homophobia in judges than it is a true study. Herek has addressed the American Psychological Association regarding his wish to counter stigma against gays and lesbians–a worthy goal–and focuses on homosexual attraction as some kind of inevitable force leading one to a homosexual orientation. All of these are simplistic, sometimes irrelevant, and most of all highly polemic. It makes me wonder whether social science research is of any value at all in deciding public policy.
]]>By: Kellyhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81610
Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:14:24 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81610Hi,

what page is this quote on:

“While their samples may not be random, they may be no worse than the convenience and snowball samples used in much of previous researcher with gay and lesbian parents;”

need the reference for an open letter I’m working on and I don’t want to buy the study (but I will if need be)

feel free to email me as well. (I’m assuming my address will be visible to Jim Burroway/others at Box turtle)

]]>By: TwirlyGirlyhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81418
Fri, 22 Oct 2010 20:01:48 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81418Please educate me – if the Journal of Biosocial Science is peer-reviewed (and I’m not saying it is – I don’t know) then how in the world did this “study” pass muster and get published, given the sources Schumm used for his “analysis?”

Did anyone else notice that one of the books Jim listed as a source for this “study” is “Trans Forming Families: Real Stories About Transgendered Loved Ones?” If one claims to have performed an analysis of current research regarding whether the sexual ORIENTATION of parents affects the sexual ORIENTATION of their children, then how would a book of stories about parents with gender IDENTITY issues be relevant? (Yes, I know – to the anti gays homosexuality and gender identity issues are one and the same. But scientifically they are not, so if one purports to have studied some aspect of homosexuality, only those transgendered individuals who are ALSO homosexual should have been included). As a matter of fact, *several* of the books include stories of children raised with a transgendered parent. Did Schumm include their data in his “analysis?” If so, did he differentiate between those who are transgendered *and* gay, and those who are trangendered and straight?

Furthermore, I looked up a few of the books used for Schumm’s “study” on Amazon, and a couple of them were written several years ago, and at the time the interviews for the stories were conducted, the “children” were in their 20’s-30’s. This is relevant because many of the subjects were actually raised by what they believed at the time were *heterosexual* parents. It wasn’t until the kids were well into their teens that they discovered one parent was gay – after their parents divorced, found a same-sex partner, and came out. So it’s ridiculous to claim they were somehow influenced to “become gay” by a gay parent they didn’t know they had until their mid-to-late teens.

]]>By: werdnahttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81336
Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:31:52 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81336Rich wrote: “This kind of analysis is only as good as the underlying studies and how comparable their measures may be.”

Who are you addressing in your comment? It seems you’re just repeating Jim’s point exactly: the underlying “studies” weren’t studies, thus the meta-analysis isn’t useful. Did you read this post?

]]>By: Richhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81296
Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:46:34 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81296You’re really distorting what a meta-analysis is. This kind of analysis is only as good as the underlying studies and how comparable their measures may be. Some meta-analyses purposely only include well designed, controlled clinical trials. Others look for ways to “harmonize” all comers. The field lacks good adoption studies with comparison groups of actual offspring. In an area like this , I would question the selection of studies as well as the appropriateness of meta-analysis.
]]>By: Kristiehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81258
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:06:18 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81258Even if the statistics this paper quoted were in fact accurate (which is in question) perhaps the statistical disparity between being raised in a heterosexual household as oppposed to a homosexual household may just make kids more open about who they really are? Did it ever occur to him that perhaps they would have a higher probability of being gay only because they were raised by parents that would accept their orientation, where a large percentage of children raised by heterosexual parents might not find that acceptance & therefore might deny their sexual orientation? That kind of thing does tend to skew data. You aren’t going to get kids raised in very religious, hetero families saying, “Oh, yeah, I gay!” for some survey if they are hiding their orientation from their family & themselves.

I’m not saying the stats are accurate becuase we all know statistics can be made to say a lot of things, but if they were it could be more about acceptance than about influence.

]]>By: John B.http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81255
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:48:48 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81255What I want to know is, were these studies looking at adopted children or biological children? (Did they even differentiate?) Because if there is a genetic basis for being gay–and there does seem to be some evidence for that–then OF COURSE gay parents are going to have gay children at a higher rate than heterosexual parents. Why should this surprise anybody??? Hooray, it’s just one more piece of evidence that being gay isn’t something we “chose” or were made into, it’s something we ARE. But if they’re concerned about gay parents somehow influencing or “making” their kids gay, then they need to start looking at children who were adopted and raised by gay parents.
]]>By: Jim Burrowayhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81251
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:10:34 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81251cd,

I haven’t seen a whole lot of research tying lesbianism to be “multigenic or semi-dominant genetic.” Do you have a source for that?

Almost all of the “maternal effects” that I’ve seen so far in male homosexuality has not been genetic, but hormonal. Although that doesn’t rule out an as yet unknown genetic basis, I haven’t seen anything yet in genetic research that has been identified as suspected areas in the genome.

]]>By: cdhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81247
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:17:47 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81247Well, afaik lesbianism is considered to be a multigenic or semi-dominant genetic trait in scientific research.

Male homosexuality is either mostly not clearly genetic in origin or obeys (to some degree, and likely more than any other mode) semidominant or recessive ‘maternal effect’ genetic inheritance. (Where the genetic makeup of the mother is the deciding fact. This would appear as linkage to the maternal X chromosome but to no particular gene in it in genetic studies. As Hamer discovered to be the case in some kindreds.)

These two things would suggest that in large populations the daughters of lesbian women would have an elevated rate of being lesbian but their sons would have the background rate of male homosexuality. The children of gay men would have the background rate of homosexuality, but the next generation (i.e. grandchildren) would have a higher rate of male homosexuality.

]]>By: Stevehttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/10/17/27400#comment-81231
Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:43:29 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=27400#comment-81231Schumm says, “I don’t believe that homosexuality is 100% genetic.” Okay…90% genetic? 80%? 50%…25%? At what point to you say, oh, this class of people doesn’t deserve civil rights protections under the rubric of “immutable characteristics”? And then you move on to the study…nevermind the data sources…”I’m going to prove that homosexuality is not genetic by comparing the rate of gay children to gay parents and the rate of gay children to straight parents. My hypothesis is that gay parents will have higher rates and this proves that gay is not genetic.” What? Read that sentence again. And again.

Well, one might say, it is more likely that gay children were adopted. Okay, fair enough, for gay men that is more likely. For gay women, it’s probably more likely that their children are their biological children. So lesbians have gay children at the same rate as straight people but gay men have a higher proportion of gay children. Wrong! That’s the exact opposite of what Schumm found. “Daughters of lesbian mothers were most likely (33% to 57%; odds ratios from 4.5 to 12.1) to report non-heterosexual identities.”

Of course this assumes that the etiology of male and female homosexuality are the same. It assumes that the sperm donors had no family history of homosexuality. For gay men, they’re more likely to adopt or seek surrogates but they’re also more willing to adopt and foster children and teens who are already thought or known to be gay. And in the case of surrogates, again, the genes are being passed on directly rather than indirectly through siblings.